McAllister v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 24 September 2020
• Docket Number: Docket No. 124848
• Citation: 181 N.E.3d 656,450 Ill.Dec. 304,2020 IL 124848
• Parties: Kevin MCALLISTER, Appellant, v. The ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (North Pond, Appellee).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2020 IL 124848

181 N.E.3d 656

450 Ill.Dec. 304

Kevin MCALLISTER, Appellant,

v.The ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (North Pond, Appellee).

Docket No. 124848

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed September 24, 2020.

Karolina M. Zielinska, Ian Elfenbaum, and Rachael J. Sinnen, of Elfenbaum, Evers & Zielinska, P.C., of Chicago, for appellant.

Jason D. Kolecke, of Hennessy & Roach, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee.

Kurt Niermann, of Porro Niermann Law Group LLC, of Aurora, for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.

OPINION

JUSTICE NEVILLE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Claimant, Kevin McAllister, injured his right knee while working as a sous-chef for his employer, North Pond restaurant. The arbitrator awarded workers' compensation benefits to claimant, but the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) reversed the decision, finding that the injury did not "arise out of" the claimant's employment. The circuit court of Cook County affirmed the Commission's decision, and the Appellate Court, Workers' Compensation Commission Division, affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. 2019 IL App (1st) 162747WC, ¶ 76, 430 Ill.Dec. 434, 126 N.E.3d 522. We granted claimant's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. July 1, 2018).

¶ 2 We hold that the Commission's finding, that the claimant's accidental knee injury

did not arise out of his employment, is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the Commission's decision and the judgments of the lower courts, and we remand with directions.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Claimant filed an application for adjustment of claim, pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) ( 820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2014)), and sought benefits for an injury he sustained to his right knee in August 2014. At the arbitration hearing, claimant testified that he works as a sous-chef for North Pond restaurant. His job duties include checking in orders, arranging the restaurant's walk-in cooler, making sauces, and prepping and cooking food.

¶ 5 On August 7, 2014, the date of the accident, claimant was working at the restaurant setting up his station for the evening shift when another cook mentioned that he may have misplaced a pan of carrots in the walk-in cooler. Claimant went into the walk-in cooler to locate the pan of carrots, and while kneeling on both knees, he checked the top, middle, and bottom shelves. Claimant explained that sometimes food items get knocked underneath the bottom shelves.

¶ 6 As claimant attempted to stand up from his kneeling position, he felt his right knee "pop." The knee "locked up," and he could not straighten his leg. Claimant hopped over to a table, stood there for a minute, and then hopped into his boss's office to sit down and tell him what happened. After discussing the accident with his boss, the general manager of the restaurant drove claimant to the hospital emergency room.

¶ 7 Claimant had previously injured his right knee in August 2013 and underwent surgery to repair the injury. He received workers' compensation benefits for the injury. Claimant returned to full-time work duties after recovering from the 2013 injury.

¶ 8 On August 11, 2014, claimant saw Dr. David Garelick, the orthopedic surgeon with the Illinois Bone & Joint Institute, who had performed the 2013 surgery on claimant's right knee. The doctor ordered claimant to undergo a magnetic resonance imaging

(MRI) scan of his right knee, which revealed a retearing of the medial meniscus. Surgery was recommended and subsequently performed on August 15, 2014. Claimant testified that he paid out-of-pocket for his surgery and anesthesia.

¶ 9 Following the surgery, claimant was prescribed pain medication and physical therapy. Although eight physical therapy sessions were recommended, claimant testified that he only attended four physical therapy sessions because he was paying out-of-pocket for the therapy sessions and he was familiar with the exercises as a result of his prior knee injury

. On September 15, 2014, claimant returned to full-time work without restrictions. Claimant testified that his job typically requires him to be on his feet for 9 to 15 hours a day, which causes his right leg to feel sore and used. He takes ibuprofen or aspirin for his pain several times a week.

¶ 10 On cross-examination, claimant testified that he knelt down on the floor on both knees in the walk-in cooler to look for the pan of carrots. While claimant did not have both hands on the floor, at times he used his hands to hold himself up. Claimant agreed that his position on the floor was similar to the position he would be in if he were looking for something underneath his bed. Claimant did not find the pan of carrots, and when he stood up from the kneeling position, he was not holding anything in his hands.

¶ 11 Claimant testified that the floor in the walk-in cooler is always wet, but he did not notice any cracks and he did not trip over anything or strike his knee on anything. Rather, claimant simply stood up from a kneeling position and then felt his right knee "pop" and "lockup." Claimant did not receive any workers' compensation benefits while he was off work from August 7, 2014, until Dr. Garelick released him to return to work on September 15, 2014.

¶ 12 A. Arbitrator's Decision

¶ 13 The arbitrator found that claimant's act of looking for the misplaced pan of carrots in the walk-in cooler was an act the employer reasonably could have expected claimant to perform in order to fulfill his duties as a sous-chef. Accordingly, the arbitrator concluded that claimant's knee injury

"arose out of" and occurred in the course of his employment with the restaurant and was covered under the Act.

¶ 14 The arbitrator awarded claimant temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, and medical expenses. In addition, the arbitrator determined that the employer's refusal to pay claimant's TTD benefits and medical expenses was dilatory, retaliatory, and objectively unreasonable and, as a result, imposed penalties under section 19(k) and section 19(l ) of the Act ( 820 ILCS 305/19(k), (l ) (West 2014)) and also awarded claimant attorney fees under section 16a of the Act (id. § 16a).

¶ 15 B. The Commission's Decision

¶ 16 The employer sought review of the arbitrator's decision before the Commission. The Commission, with one commissioner dissenting, set aside the arbitrator's decision, finding that claimant failed to prove that his knee injury

"arose out of" his employment because he "was subjected to a neutral risk which had no particular employment or personal characteristics." The Commission found that claimant's knee injury did not result from an employment-related risk but rather from a neutral risk of standing up from a kneeling position, which had no "peculiar" employment characteristics. The Commission determined that claimant had not established that he was exposed to this neutral risk to a greater degree than the general public. One commissioner dissented, stating that he would have affirmed the arbitrator's decision in its entirety.

¶ 17 C. Circuit Court Decision

¶ 18 Claimant appealed to the circuit court of Cook County, which affirmed the majority decision of the Commission. The circuit court agreed with the Commission that claimant's act of standing up from a kneeling position was a neutral risk that did not expose claimant to more risk than that to which the general public was exposed. The circuit court found that the Commission correctly decided that claimant had been subjected to a noncompensable neutral risk and that the Commission's decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 19 D. Appellate Court Decision

¶ 20 Claimant appealed to the Appellate Court, Workers' Compensation Commission Division, where a majority of the court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, which affirmed the Commission's decision. 2019 IL App (1st) 162747WC, ¶ 76, 430 Ill.Dec. 434, 126 N.E.3d 522. All five justices agreed with the Commission's determination that claimant was not injured due to an employment-related risk and that the determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. ¶ 73 ; see id. ¶ 79 (Holdridge, P.J., specially concurring, joined by Hoffman, J.). However, the panel disagreed on whether a compensable injury can arise out of an employee's employment when the employee is injured while performing job duties that involve common bodily movements or routine "everyday activities" such as bending, twisting, reaching, or standing up from a kneeling position.

¶ 21 The appellate majority cited Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm'n , 129 Ill. 2d 52, 133 Ill.Dec. 454, 541 N.E.2d 665 (1989), for the proposition that an injury arises out of a claimant's employment for purposes of the Act if, at the time of injury, the claimant was performing an act that he might reasonably be expected to perform incident to his employment or causally connected to what the claimant must do to fulfill his assigned job duties, even if the act involves an everyday activity. 2019 IL App (1st) 162747WC, ¶¶ 41, 50-51, 430 Ill.Dec. 434, 126 N.E.3d 522 (majority opinion). However, the appellate majority determined that claimant's knee injury

did not arise out of his employment because "[t]he risk posed to claimant from the act of standing from a kneeling position while looking for something that had been misplaced by a coworker was arguably not distinctly related to his employment." Id. ¶ 73.

¶ 22 Two specially concurring justices took a different position and cited Adcock v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n , 2015 IL App (2d) 130884WC, 395 Ill.Dec. 401, 38 N.E.3d 587, for the proposition that a claimant who is injured while performing an everyday activity such as standing up from a kneeling position could only obtain compensation under the Act if he could establish that his job duties required him to...